Revision Sent to Alana for checking references



Download 0.51 Mb.
Page6/21
Date31.03.2018
Size0.51 Mb.
#44029
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   21

POPULATION TRENDS


According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012a or b?), there was an estimated 372,211 people residing within the CPYRW counties during 2012. An increase in population was noted for all counties except Barbour and Bullock, which showed slight declines of 6 and 11%, respectively. Coffee, Houston, and Pike Counties had the largest increases in population, all ranging above 10%. The remaining counties showed less than 5% increases in population. Total housing units numbered 170,107 within the watershed and the average median income was $37,672. Population data, median household income, and housing units for each county in the CPYRW are shown in table 9.

Selected economic characteristics for the region show that industry is composed of the following classes: agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining; construction; manufacturing; wholesale and retail trade; transportation and warehousing, and utilities; information services; finance, insurance, and real estate; professional, scientific, management, and administrative and waste management services; educational services, and health care and social assistance, arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services; and public administration (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a). Table 10 shows the percentages of each general occupation class for combined counties in the watershed. These data were derived from the Selected Economic Characteristics (DP03) portion of the U.S. Census Bureau 2008-2012 (5-year estimates) American Community Survey.


ECONOMIC IMPACTS


Water resource management plays an integral role in economic development. Sufficient amounts of water must be available to support population growth and promote an expanding economic infrastructure. Availability of water is critical for industry, agriculture, transportation, recreation, power generation, and tourism, which drive economic health and growth and job creation in Alabama (Alabama Water Agencies Working Group (AWAWG), 2012). Regions where plentiful water resources are available to be utilized for economic growth could be targeted for industrial recruitment. In addition to potential consumptive water needs, efforts must be made for the continuation of waterborne transportation. Although not specifically in the CPYRW, navigable waterways remain a viable component for the state’s intermodal transportation infrastructure. Water navigation provides a cost effective alternative to rail and trucking transport methods and provides incentive for certain industries and locations (AWAWG, 2012). Some infrastructure investments, such as water and wastewater treatment plants, can provide long-term investments for local and state economies. There are several state and federal funding programs that help meet water and wastewater infrastructure needs. Federal programs include the USDA Rural Development Program and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Planning Assistance to the States Program. Another program provided under state law is the Water Supply Assistance Fund (Code of Alabama, §22-23A).

Water resource programs impact economic development in all sectors, including industry, agriculture, transportation, and recreation. In some cases, these uses are conflicting, which makes proper water resource management practices critical for resolution. Industries use water in manufacturing processes, cooling purposes, and product transportation. Water for industrial use may be self-supplied or purchased from a public-water supplier. Farmers are highly dependent on natural rainfall and only a small percentage of farming operations in the CPYRW irrigate. Additional funding and the development of low-interest loans or tax credits (mentioned in the Agricultural Issues section) may encourage investments in irrigation infrastructure. Recreational activities such as fishing, paddling, and wildlife viewing account for a significant and quickly growing tourism industry in Alabama, especially in the CPYRW. As part of the overall efforts to support recreational activities, it is important to ensure adequate public access to maximize development and promote participation. It is critical that water resource management and water source development be used as tools for economic growth and job creation opportunities, while minimizing the need for interbasin transfers as well as optimizing surface-water and groundwater withdrawals.


RECOMMENDATIONS


The CPYRWMA should develop future options for water source development and protection to ensure the availability of water for economic development. An economic development program should be developed for the CPYRW and made available to the Alabama Department of Commerce and other economic development agencies and industrial recruiters. The CPYRWMA should coordinate with the Southeast Alabama Regional Planning Commission, Alabama Department of Commerce, and the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs to ensure that water supply and other economic development information for the CPYRW is available and considered, relative to economic development and impacts.

POLICY OPTIONS


In the future, a comprehensive statewide management plan should be implemented to promote prudent water source development, equitable water distribution, and conservative water use.

WATERSHED TRENDS

LAND USE


Over time watershed trends tend to change, specifically in the areas of land use and water use. Current land use was discussed previously in the Land Use section of this document. Historical and current land uses are compared to provide a framework for estimated future land uses within the watersheds. Previous land-use/land-cover investigations employed datasets compiled from the MRLC’s NLCD, based on Landsat satellite Thematic Mapper imagery (circa 1992) with a spatial resolution of 30 meters (CWP and GSA, 2005). Based on the 1992 NLCD dataset, the predominant land use was forests (58.1%) followed by agriculture (30.5%), wetlands (6.1%), urban uses (4.7%), and lakes and water bodies (0.6%) (Vogelmann and others, 2001). As discussed previously, 2011 land uses in the CPYRW included forests (64%), agriculture (22.2%), urban uses (6.7%), wetlands (6.3%), and water bodies (0.9%) (fig. 15). By comparing historic and current land uses, it is apparent that urbanized areas are increasing, specifically at 42.55% from 1992 through 2011, with the only percentage decline of 27.21% observed in agriculture (fig. 16). Increases in urbanized areas are indicative of population increases, resulting in a higher demand for urban and residential areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS


Regional planning strategies for land use should be developed that protect water resources and identify options for future water source development. This includes but is not limited to the following: development of enforceable land use options that limit construction and impervious surfaces in critical recharge areas, controls sediment from construction activities, protects and preserves critical wetlands, and protects designated source water protection areas and critical habitat areas.

POLICY OPTIONS


Water policy options should be developed that will complement land-use regulations, such as county-wide zoning and habitat and species protection, which will result in comprehensive protection of water and biological resources.

WATER USE


The sole source of drinking water in the Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers watersheds is from groundwater with surface water mainly used for agricultural purposes (CWP and GSA, 2005). Significant water use categories in the watersheds can be divided into residential, nonresidential, agricultural, and power generation. Within the 10-county area, there are a total of 359 wells throughout the ten counties. Appendix 7 provides a list of the public water suppliers within the 10-county area.

Multiple sources of data for this Water Management Plan (WMP) were used to determine historic and future estimated water use within the watersheds. The following publications were used for determining historic, current, and estimated future water uses in the CPYRW:



  • the GSA’s Use of Water in Alabama, published every five years from 1970-1990,

  • the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication Water Use in Alabama,1995,

  • the 2002 Municipal and Industrial Water Demand Forecasts report prepared for the CPYRWMA by the USACE,

  • the 2008 Agricultural Water Demand report prepared by the USDA NRCS, and

  • the 2009 Estimated Use of Water in Alabama in 2005, published by the USGS and ADECA OWR.

Since 1993, ADECA OWR has been tasked with collecting and reporting estimated water use within the state of Alabama, with the most current published estimated water use data for the year 2005; however, preliminary data for 2010 has been obtained from ADECA OWR. Therefore, estimates are provided for 2015 and beyond, based on estimated water use as taken from the USACE and NRCS reports. Inaccuracies may occur within these estimates due to limited local input and reporting of water use to the state water management authority. Agricultural water use estimates by NRCS, USACE, and ADECA OWR are somewhat contradictory, due to the nature of the relationship with the agricultural industry in Alabama. NRCS estimates are considered the most reliable agricultural water use within the watershed (CWP and GSA, 2005).

Table 11 shows the estimated water use for 1970 through 2005. Estimated total water use, not including water consumed for power generation, within the ten-county area for 1970 was 36.84 million gallons per day (mgd), with groundwater and surface-water uses accounting for 27.29 mgd and 9.55 mgd, respectively. In 2005, estimated water use, not including water for power generation was 154.63 mgd, with groundwater and surface-water uses accounting for 84.24 mgd and 70.40 mgd, respectively (fig. 17). Increased estimated water use was 86.43% for surface-water and 67.60% for groundwater from 1970 through 2005) (fig. 18).

Since 1970, Houston County has shown the largest water usage in the watershed, while Bullock County has shown the smallest water usage since 1980 (table 12). In 2005, Houston County had the largest estimated water use at 37.24 mgd, with groundwater and surface-water uses accounting for 22.32 mgd and 14.93 mgd, respectively, whereas Bullock County had the smallest estimated water use at 3.96 mgd, with groundwater and surface-water uses accounting for 2.59 mgd and 1.37 mgd, respectively (table 12).

Water use for the CPYRW can also be analyzed according to watersheds and water use categories for 2005 data and 2010 preliminary data (table ?) Table ? shows the groundwater and surface water withdrawals by watershed for use categories including public supply, irrigation, livestock, and industrial. As compared to 2005 water use data, two watersheds (Pea and Lower Choctawhatchee) showed increases in groundwater use, whereas the other two watersheds (Yellow and Upper Choctawhatchee) showed decreases in groundwater use (table ?).

Water use is divided into four categories for the CPYRW: residential, nonresidential, agricultural, and power generation. Residential water usage includes both publically supplied and self-supplied sources for household use (USACE, 2002). Public-supply water use includes all water delivered to household customers via municipal, county, and water authority water systems (USACE, 2002), with groundwater being the sole source of water supply for all residential water in the watersheds (CWP and GSA, 2005). Nonresidential water use includes all commercial, industrial, government, and nonhousehold public water usage (USACE, 2002). Agricultural water use includes self-supplied water for crops, orchards, cultivated sod, nursery, livestock, poultry, and aquaculture (USDA NRCS, 2002). Power uses include water used to generate power, which includes cooling water and hydropower.

Estimated residential water use increased 13% from 23.43 mgd in 1970 to 26.93 mgd in 2005 (fig. 19). Estimated nonresidential groundwater use increased by 95%, from 1.71 mgd in 1970 to 33.98 mgd in 2005, with data for year 2000 taken from USACE estimates. Estimated surface water decreased by 86%, from 3.09 mgd in 1970 to 0.42 mgd in 2005, with a substantial decrease of 90% from 1975 to 1980, which could be attributed to the closure of industrial facilities, such as textile mills (fig. 20). [check figures—inside text boxes look jumbled up]

Groundwater and surface water are both sources for agricultural water uses. However, 75% of the water used for agricultural purposes is from surface water sources (USDA NRCS, 2002). Estimated water used for agricultural purposes has increased significantly (91%) since 1970. In 1970, an estimated 8.6 mgd were used for agricultural purposes, with groundwater and surface water accounting for 2.15 mgd and 6.45 mgd, respectively. In 2005 total estimated use increased to 93.31 mgd, with groundwater and surface water accounting for 23.33 mgd and 69.98 mgd, respectively (fig. 21). The bulk of the estimated agricultural water use in the CPYRW is historically and currently used for irrigation (fig. 21). From 1970 to 2005, the estimated water use for irrigation increased 98% from 1.7 mgd in 1970 to 83.2 mgd in 2005. In 2005, Houston County had the largest estimated water usage for irrigation (19.4 mgd), whereas Bullock County had the smallest (1.6 mgd) (fig. 22). In 1970, estimated water use was 4.8 mgd and 2.1 mgd for livestock and aquaculture, respectively. By 2005, estimated use increased by 21 and 48% to 6.1 mgd and 4.0 mgd. In 2005, Coffee County had the largest estimated water use for livestock (1.0 mgd) and Barbour County had the highest estimated water use for aquaculture (2.1 mgd).

Information regarding water usage for power generation was obtained from publications of the GSA, including Use of Water in Alabama, Information Series (IS) 42 (Peirce, 1972), IS 48 (Mettee, Moser and Dean, 1978), IS 59 (Baker, Gillett and Meng, 1982), IS 59D (Baker and Mooty, 1987), and IS 59E (Baker and Mooty, 1993) for 5-year intervals from 1970 to 1990, from a publication by the USGS Water Use in Alabama, 1995 [REF?], and from ADECA OWR’s Estimated Use of Water in Alabama in 2005 [REF?]. Water usage for power generation was not included in the USACE’s Municipal and Industrial Water Demand Forecasts [REF?]; therefore, no projections are provided for future water consumption from power generation.

Three power plants are located within the ten-county area: a hydroelectric plant in Covington County, a thermoelectric (nuclear) plant in Houston County, and a thermoelectric (fossil fuel) plant in Covington County. Estimated water demand has increased since 1980 for the Farley Nuclear Plant in Houston County, from 71.74 mgd in 1980 to 105.36 mgd in 2005, or an increase of 32%. Similarly, estimated water demand has increased since 1970 for the McWilliams Plant (fossil fuel) in Covington County, from 0.25 mgd in 1970 to 4.30 mgd in 2005, or an increase of 94% (fig. 23). Hydroelectric plants consume almost no water during hydroelectric-power generation and this water use is considered in-stream water use because the majority of the water is returned to the source (Mooty and Richardson, 1998). Covington County has two hydroelectric facilities that are
considered in-stream water users. Estimated in-stream water use has decreased from 1,480 mgd in 1970 to 954.73 mgd in 1995, a decrease of less than 1% (fig. 24).

With available historic and current estimated water usage data, water demand forecasts are prepared to provide estimates for future water usage. Water demand forecasts prepared by the USACE are dependent upon changes in population, housing units, and employment, with forecasts projected for three growth scenarios (low, moderate, and high) for residential and nonresidential use only (USACE, 2002). The USDA NRCS agricultural water use study also included forecasts for future water demand. Therefore, these two data sets were combined to obtain a comprehensive water demand forecast for the CPYRW.



Table 13 lists the forecasted estimated water use for low, moderate, and high growth scenarios. Residential water demand for the low growth scenario is expected to increase from 48.82 mgd in 2010 to 55.64 mgd in 2050 (12%). The moderate growth scenario predicts the water demand to increase from 49.96 mgd in 2010 to 61.40 mgd in 2050 (19%), and the high growth scenario predicts an increase from 50.71 mgd in 2010 to 72.31 mgd in 2050 (30%). Nonresidential water demand, excluding water used for power generation, is predicted to increase from 15.72 mgd in 2010 to 17.91 mgd in 2050 (12%) for the low growth scenario, 16.09 mgd in 2010 to 19.78 mgd in 2050 for the moderate growth scenario (19%), and 16.33 mgd in 2010 to 23.29 mgd in 2050 (30%) for the high growth scenario. Agricultural water demand is expected to increase from 111.60 mgd in 2010 to 200.7 mgd in 2050, a 44% increase. The majority of this increase is expected to come from expanded irrigation (USDA NRCS, 2002). The low growth forecasted water demand indicates an increase from 176.14 mgd in 2010 to 274.25 mgd in 2050 (36%), the moderate growth forecasted an water demand should increase from 177.65 in 2010 to 281.88 mgd in 2050 (37%), and high growth forecasted water demand indicates that water demand should increase from 178.64 mgd in 2010 to 296.30 mgd in 2050 (40%) (fig. 25).

RECOMMENDATIONS


The CPYRWMA in coordination with the ADECA OWR, Alabama Rural Water Association (ARWA), Alabama Farmers Federation (ALFA), and other water related agencies should develop methodologies for collection of water use data from local water users.

POLICY OPTION


Accurate and timely water use information is critical for future water source planning and water policy development. A coordinated water use data collection program will require the establishment of enforceable state law or ordinances requiring all applicable water users to submit water use data to the state water management authority as part of a comprehensive water management plan.


Download 0.51 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   21




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page